Altantuyaa case - stranger & stranger

Malaysiakini - Altantuya wanted to collect fees for 'submarine purchase' translations (extracts):

Namiraa Gerelmaa (Altantuyas's cousin) 

Altantuya Shaariibuu had intended to collect payments from her former lover Abdul Razak Baginda for her translation work in relation to the government's alleged purchase of submarines, her cousin told the Shah Alam High Court today.

Namiraa Gerelmaa was the third witness in the RM100 million civil suit filed by the slain Mongolian national's family against Razak Baginda, the government, and two others convicted of her murder.

Namiraa, along with their friend identified as Urintuya Gal-Ochir, had accompanied Altantuya during her last trip to Kuala Lumpur in October 2006.

"She (Altantuya) said she was in a relationship with Razak Baginda and wanted to meet him," she said to questions from lawyer Sangeet Kaur Deo.

"She also told me that she had done some translation work for him and wanted to collect (payment) from him."

Namiraa said she made the trip to Malaysia after she was invited to accompany Altantuya, and that she was only told of her cousin's plans shortly after their arrival.

"She also told me that the Malaysian side was going to purchase submarines from the Russians and the meeting was held in France.

"She said that Razak Baginda wanted her to translate from English to Russian and vice-versa for that meeting. She told me there was an agreement."

It's clear now that Altantuyaa wanted to collect fees for purported RUSSIAN 'submarine purchase' and not as we know it now, French Scopenes.

Cousin Namiraa Gerelmaa informed the court that:

"She [Altantuyaa] also told me that the Malaysian side was going to purchase submarines from the Russians and the meeting was held in France."

Does that make sense, having a meeting in France to buy Russian subs?

Why not in Malaysia or Moscow?

If that had been true, the event would have been seen as provocative to the French, wakakaka.

Be that as it may, Cousin Namiraa Gerelmaa was cross-examination by Razak Baginda's lawyer Manjeet Singh Dhillon, who said she, as reported, "exaggerated" many details in her current witness statement, including the alleged purchase of submarines by the government.

Both Namiraa and Urintuya [Urintuya Gal-Ochir,a friend, has been another wirness] had testified as witnesses during the Altantuya murder trial in 2007.

Manjeet referred to evidence submitted by Urintuya in the murder trial that Altantuya only talked about coming to Malaysia to meet Razak Baginda, but that there were no other details.

"I put it to you that what Urintuya had said in her statement was all that Altantuya had said about Razak Baginda, nothing more, nothing less," said the lawyer, to which Namiraa disagreed.

Similarly, senior federal counsel Norinna Bahadun, representing the government, said Namiraa was submitting fresh evidence which "never existed" during the criminal trial, and was "tainted" by various media reports on Altantuya's death.

To further questions from lawyer Ramkarpal Singh, Namiraa agreed that she had not mentioned these details, including the alleged submarine deal during the criminal trial.

The former freelance journalist claimed that she was "afraid," and that there was no opportunity for her to do so at the time.

The court also learned from Namiraa said they had gone to Razak Baginda's office, as Altantuya was looking to claim payments that he owed her for several translation jobs.

What translation job as no Russian submarine was purchased?

Fresh evidence; Russian (instead) of French subs; dinner for three in Paris hence the the meeting was conveniently held in France; Russian to English instead of French to English, vice versa, translation.

These don't look/sound convincing.

I venture (speculate only) that the tragedy was a very "personal" issue between Razak Baginda and Shaariibuu Altantuyaa, and had nothing to do with the subs purchase.

The French company (nor, I bet, the purported Russian company) would have needed a translator.

late P Subramaniam 

And BTW, I read in another MKINI article that two of Razak Baginda's hired PI's (one of whom was P Balasubramaniam) threatened Altantuyaa with one of them warning to throw her from her hotel 8th floor, and then advising her to return to Mongolia.

Semenyih by-elections March 2019

Stats here are all rounded up for convenient reading - I've also used percentiles rather than actual numer of votes as this provides a better comparison between the 2013 GE and 2018 GE since voter population of the Seminyih constituency would have grown/increased between 2013 and 2018:

In last year's general election (GE14), Pribumi (PPBM) contesting under PH logo of PKR) won 51% of the votes in Semenyih.

But if UMNO and PAS were to collaborate (which doesn't automatically or necessary translate into total combination of their 2018 votes), the UMNO candidate participating in the by-election may theoretically win 46 - 47% of the votes.

Then there is Die-Hard Arutchelvan, who obtained about 3% in the last GE, mentioning he may compete again.

With a constituency of 70% Malays, 17% Chinese and 13% Indians, the nons will be the 'kingmaker' again, a situation purported planned by Mahathir during his earlier PM-regime (1981 - 2003). The old man had allowed for a split in Malay votes, to wit, between his then-UMNO and archfoe PAS, and for the nons to back UMNO out of fear of a hudud-bent PAS, wakakaka (that's why he banned Israel form competing in a supposed to-be-held by Malaysia sporting event.

Selangor state election, 2018 

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	∆%
	PH	Bakhtiar Mohd Nor	23,428	50.76	+ 14.84
	BN	Johan Abd Aziz	14,464	31.34	- 17.55
	PAS	Mad Shahmiour Mat Kosim	6,966	15.09	+ 15.09
	PSM	Arutchelvan Subramaniams	1,293	2.80	- 12.39
Total valid votes			46,151	100.00
Total rejected ballots			366
Unreturned ballots			55
Turnout			46,572	87.45
Registered electors			53,257
Majority			8,964	19.42
	PH gain from BN

Semenyih has 53,257 voters with 69.4% of them Malays, 17.2% Chinese, 13.3% Indians and 0.01% (Other races).

The 2013 General Election saw Johan triumph with a 4,747-vote majority against PKR's Hamidi A. Hasan (13,1650 and Arutchelvan (5,568).

Arutchelvan had lost to Johan by merely 1,140 votes in the 2008 General Election.

Selangor state election, 2013 

Party		Candidate	Votes	%	∆%
	BN	Johan Abd Aziz	17,922	48.89	- 3.70
	PKR	Hamidi A. Hasan	13,165	35.92	- 11.49
	PSM	Arutchelvan Subramaniams	5,568	15.19	+ 15.19
Total valid votes			36,655	100.00
Total rejected ballots			701
Unreturned ballots			216
Turnout			37,572	88.73
Registered electors			42,344
Majority			4,757
	BN hold		Swing

In 2018, a political wave changed the government for the first time, alhough technically Malaysia still has the same old UMNO-ish PM in Mahathir so in reality no change to the old racism and Pribumi dominace in PH a la UMNO dominance in BN.

That same wave saw Pribumi (contesting under PKR logo) increasing its 2013's 36% (by the actual PKR) to 2018's 51% whilst respectively UMNO went (2013 to 2018) from 49% to 31% and PAS contesting only in 2018 seized 16%.

OTOH, poor Arutchelvan suffered a loss of 12%, from 2013's 15% to 2018's 3%.

On the basis of the 2018 GE result, Pribumi should win in the coming March by-election as it has a handsome 51% share of the votes won last year. But a few factors need to be taken into considerations, namely:

(a) the Cameron Highlands by-election saw, as shown by Bridget Welsh in MKINI's ‘Old Malaysia’ in Cameron Highlands, the Malays swinging to BN-UMNO by over 31.5%.

One can argue that the Malays in Semenyih are not Heartland/FELDA Melayu and thus won't swing so much even if they swing.

But what if the Malays in Semenyih were to swing by just 10%? Based on 2018 stats, that is equivalent to roughly 3000 votes, which is enough for UMNO to win.

With Arutchelvan competing, this time under a Pakatan with diminished lustre and thus probably under better auspices for PSM, he may drag away more votes from Pakatan.

As for the Chinese 'kingmakers', remember, above stats were based on the 2018 GE turnout of 87.45%. Apa lagi Cina bolih buat?

Pakatan Ministers who are 'kacang lupa kulit'

FMT - PH in clear and present danger, Kadir Jasin reminds ‘unfriendly’ ministers:

PETALING JAYA: An adviser to Dr Mahathir Mohamad today gave a damning appraisal of the Pakatan Harapan government’s performance since taking over federal power, saying “unfriendly” ministers and their aides have not lived up to their supporters’ expectations.

Kadir Jasin, the prime minister’s media and communications adviser, said the ruling coalition was now in “clear and present” danger following the beating it took in the recent Cameron Highlands by-election.

“So be forewarned. If the people could vote the PH in, they could also vote the PH out,” Kadir said on his blog today.

He said PH ministers had become “unfriendly”, and their aides were also “inefficient”, “bureaucratic” and “distant”. [...]

He said prices of goods and services, unemployment and affordable homes remained major issues for Malaysians close to one year after voting Barisan Nasional out of power. [...]

“After promises upon promises being broken, the people don’t anymore buy the ‘akan kaji’ (will study) excuses and blaming of the previous government,” he said.

He said some ministers had also lost touch with ordinary Malaysians.

“During the Cameron Highlands campaign I saw ministers and their deputies crowding around the VIP tables instead of mixing with the people,” said Kadir.

I will zoom in on just one particular issue or instance - that of matching grants for Tunku Abdul Rahman University College (TAR-UC).

Late last year MCA president Dr Wee Ka Siong lambasted new Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng for denying TAR UC its usual annual government matching grants, indeed for the first time in its 50 years of existence. And that unique eff-off to TAR UC has been by a Chinese Malaysian Finance Minister.

Lim GE might have been the first Chinese Malaysian Finance Minister since 1974 when Tan Siew Sin (MCA) as the previous and last Chinese Malaysian FM resigned from politics after his request to be made Deputy PM was denied.

Be that as it might have been, Lim GE, by refusing to continue matching grants for TAR UC on grounds of partisan politics, had cast doubts on the UC to continue providing affordable higher education for the lower income group especially among Chinese Malaysians.

Lim GE in his typical arrogance demanded of MCA to severe its ties with TAR UC, a learning institute which MCA had conceived, created and maintained to help poor Chinese and other Malaysian students who were marginalised from the mainstream universities because of their 2nd class ethnicity.

That's the standard but sickening arrogance of Tokong, which made me wonder whether he's competing with RTA to be a better Malaysian.

The previous government prior to Tokong coming to power with a PH government provided TAR UC matching grants every year to help meet its operating expenses in order to keep the course fees low.

Star Online reported: Dr Wee said some 200,000 Malaysians graduated from TAR College/TAR UC over the last 50 years.

About 95% of the graduates were Chinese and the rest from other ethnic groups. They included Agriculture and Agro-Based Indus­tries Minister Datuk Salahuddin Ayub and Primary Industries Minister Teresa Kok.

besides Salahuddin Ayub and Teresa Kok, Chong Eng the current DAP ADUN for Padang Lalang Penang and the previous MP for Bukit Mertajam were alumnus of TAR UC

Dr Wee urged the people, especially those who had studied in TAR College and TAR UC to speak up on the issue – which touched on depriving TAR UC of matching grants – and causing much uncertainty among the lower-income group which looked forward to an affordable higher education.

Did you hear a squeak from Chong Eng, Salahuddin Ayub or Teresa Kok on the now-denied matching grants for their alma mater?

Teresa Kok who had been usually so vocal and pandai at making Chinese New Year propaganda videos (eg. the “Onederful Malaysia” video which landed her in trouble with the authorities, with a sedition charge brought against her) has been deafeningly silent on Lim GE's refusal to provide matching grants for her alma mater. 

Hasn't her silence or act dunno, as that of Chong Eng and Salahuddin Ayub, been exactly what Pak Kadir Yasin lamented, that: Some ministers had also lost touch with ordinary Malaysians.

View above video made by Teresa Kok in 2014, which coincidentally contained issues on tertiary education and how the script 'made fun' of Malaysian mainstream universities.

Yet sadly, as an alumnus of of TAR UC she has today looked away when Lim GE penalises the university college (and thus Chinese Malaysian students especially those whose parents can't afford to send them to Monash University in Melbourne Australia), just for maintaining ties with its creator and administrator for 50 years.

The Real Reason for Mahathir banning Israel from Malaysia

FMT - Dr M: I allowed Israeli team in 1997 to show we were not terrorists (extracts):

PUTRAJAYA: Dr Mahathir Mohamad has again defended Putrajaya’s ban on Israeli athletes taking part in sporting events in Malaysia, saying his stand on the Palestinian conflict has not changed despite once allowing Israeli sportsmen two decades ago.

He was asked why his administration had in 1997 allowed the Israeli cricket team to participate in an international tournament in Kuala Lumpur.

He said he had then allowed the Israelis to enter Malaysia to show that Muslims were not terrorists.

“We are normal people, we talk to people. We behave well,” the prime minister told reporters here.

“We don’t do anything wrong to them. But children who throw stones at them, they shoot bullets,” he said, referring to clashes between Palestinians and Israeli security forces.

Mahathir was also asked if he would also ban athletes from Myammar and China over their governments’ actions against minorities there, as well as against Saudi Arabia over its Yemen campaign.

“We base it on facts, once we confirm the facts, we will give our opinion,” Mahathir replied.

Though he referred to Jews as those with "hook noses", even as recent as his visit to the UK late last year, I suspect he is not as fervently anti-Jew or anti-Semitic as he has made himself out to be - he is a very devious manipulating man, with only his political interests utmost in his mind as he made his speech, actions and policies.

As stated above, in 1997 he allowed the Israeli cricket team to participate in an international tournament in KL, yet now in 2019 he has banned Israeli para swimmers from competing in Sarawak in a swimming meet under the Olympic aegis.

Why?

The real reason is that Mahathir is playing to the local gallery, to wit, the Malay-Muslim constituency.

He knows/realises his party Pribumi is not as popular with the Malay-Muslims as PAS and UMNO, much as he has hoped for.

At this crucial time in his silent battle with Anwar and others in a struggle to control the Malay votes, so vital to control of power in Malaysia, he cannot afford to be less Malay-Muslim than Anwar Ibrahim, Hadi Awang, or for that matter, Najib Razak.

That was also why he rejected ICERD, namely the elimination of racial discrimination and the promotion of understanding among all races, and yet brazenly in the same breath, justifies barring Israel for racial and human rights discrimination against Palestinians.

Just recall how Mahathir was not shy about using a Jew, Jack Abramoff, who was convicted for corruption and fraud, to lobby for a photo-op with George Bush Jnr. Mahathir himself admitted Abramoff was paid US$1.2 million for that lobbying job though he claimed neither he nor the Malaysian paid that sum to Abramoff.

Jack Abramoff 

Thus, in my opinion, Mahathir does not give nor care a damn about Jews and Middle-East politics, UNLESS his political interests profit from it.

As his Pribumi party currently lacks more substantial power (as compared to his UMNO in 1997), it has galvanised him to do something drastic against Israel in order to win brownie points from the more gullible Malay-Muslim constituency.

Inconsistencies in Burmaa's testimony in Altantuyaa's case

My letter to Malaysiakini (submitted Thursday 24th but published today, as follows:

Malaysiakini - Inconsistencies in Burmaa's testimony:

"Amy" Burmaa Oyunchimeg

New Malaysia promises, among many things, justice and fairness for all.

Thus, it is important that when so-called "evidence" is presented against or for anyone under legal charge in Malaysia, these must be ascertained, diligently scrutinised and verified.

In your news article titled 'Defence grills Altantuya's cousin if 'photo with Najib' exists', Burmaa Oyunchimeg, the cousin of the slain Mongolian national Altantuya Shaariibuu and a witness in the RM100 million civil suit brought by Altantuya's family over her death, testified under oath that she saw the photographs of Altantuya with two men - Abdul Razak Baginda and the "deputy prime minister" named Razak.

On her testimony, I would like to draw your attention to a Malaysiakini article on the Altantuyaa case published 12 years ago, specifically on June 29, 2007.

In 2007 in the Shah Alam High Court, when Burmaa was asked by deputy public prosecutor Manoj Kurup whether she had personal knowledge of Altantuyaa's disappearance, she answered she knew Altantuyaa came to see Razak who happened to be the only person she knew in Malaysia.

Note her "original" testimony - Altantuyaa came to see Razak, presumably Razak Baginda, the only person she knew in Malaysia.

Burmaa said: "I know why she wanted to see Razak Baginda - I have seen pictures of Altantuya with Razak and a government official."

Note again her "original" testimony - that besides Razak Baginda who was then the only person Altantuyaa knew in Malaysia, there was a "government official".

Following that, our late Karpal Singh, who was holding a watching brief for the deceased's family, sought permission from the court to pose a question on the photograph allegedly of Altantuyaa with Razak Baginda and the government official.

Very much against the protest of Manoj, Judge Mohammed Zaki Mohammed Yasin allowed Karpal to question Burmaa about the alleged picture. The veteran lawyer proceeded to ask Burmaa what was depicted in the photograph.

Burmaa said again, "She (Altantuya) was having a meal at a round table with Razak (Baginda), a Malaysian government official and other people."

Karpal then asked her on the identity of the government official, and she replied: "I remember the name Najib Razak, they had the same name, 'Razak'. I thought they were brothers. I asked her (Altantuya) if they were brothers."

Subsequent to a brouhaha which ensued, a lawyer for one of the accused policemen accused Karpal of "coaching" Burmaa.


Seeming insinuation

Let us recapitulate the report on Burmaa's testimony, namely:

(a) besides Razak Baginda, there was a "government official" and not her description today of the "deputy prime minister". The 2007 evidence could be surmised as an important piece of "untainted" evidence which she mentioned twice, initially to the DPP and then subsequently to Karpal Singh;

(b) Razak Baginda was the only person Altantuyaa knew in Malaysia;

(c) even when Burmaa subsequently named the other person besides Razak Baginda as Najib Razak, allegedly "coached" by Karpal as put forward by a lawyer for one of the accused policemen, she still did not mention the description "deputy prime minister"; and

(d) the so-called "photograph" alluded to by Burmaa did not and does not exist. The only photograph in this sorry tragedy was the one that had been photoshopped showing the trio at a dinner in Paris.

Given these inconsistencies, the 2007 testimony versus the 2019 testimony, I wonder at Deputy Law Minister Mohamed Hanipa Maidin's seeming insinuation at Najib as reported in the former's statement: "The difference is that (when) he [Razak Najib] accused the cousin of lying, it was done outside the court and not under oath."

What an interesting development!

DAP lost in Cameron Highlands

Well, Pakatan Harapan or more precisely, DAP has lost the by-elections in Cameron Highlands (CH).

At at 6.56 pm this evening (Saturday Jan 26), the EC tweeted unofficial results showing BN's Ramli Nor won 11,381 votes whilst poor M. Manogaran 7,182 votes.

Since (at 4 pm) voter turnout was only 68% or 21,792 voters, Ramli has won more than 50% of the possible votes (10,896).

The person I feel most sorry for is M Manogaran who had put in enormous amount of hard work to legally disqualified the previous BN candidate (MIC) until the end of his campaign today in CH.

But alas for him, the combined Malay votes must have knocked him out when UMNO and PAS collaborated. As Penangites would describe his political fate, Bay Chay-Tian (ta' mampu naik duduk di Singgahsana).

But I am particularly tickled pink at the discomfort of a panicky Lim Kit Siang who during the twilight phase of the campaigning suddenly remembered he was Chinese when he urged CH Chinese who are working elsewhere to return to CH to vote, as if those gradually-disenchanted-with-DAP/LKS Chinese would automatically vote DAP. It's good Lim KS has been taught a lesson kaukau.

Cina (bukan Melayu) mudah lupa

Boycott, Ban & Bar Israel?

Zan Azlee in his Malaysiakini column penned What’s wrong with banning Israeli athletes? (extracts follows):

I personally feel uncomfortable with banning sportspeople, although in the end I've to agree with both Zan and even, wakakaka, Mahathir.

Banning or boycotting Israel would be better notified and publicised as BDS, a movement which is strong among European academic circles.

Wikipedia informs us (short extract): The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (also known as BDS) is a global campaign promoting various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets what the campaign describes as Israel's "obligations under international law", defined as withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and "respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties".

Aeons ago, the sporting world (except for some Western nations like the USA) boycotted White South African (and possibly Israeli) athletes especially in tennis tournaments.

Australia was one exception in that it didn't boycott any sporting event or person, as demonstrated by its participation in both the Moscow and Los Angeles Olympics. The Australian Olympic Council was/is totally independent of the Australian government and Australian politics.

The boycott-Afrikaans moment would witness, say a Russian (or in those days, a USSR tennis player) on seeing a white South African (or Israeli) as his or her opponent, he or she (the USSR person) drops out, refusing to play with that pariah nation, preparing to forfeit his or her standing in the tournament.

Thus boycotting players of certain nations is not new.

Notwithstanding this, as mentioned above I personally feel that allowing politics to intrude into sports especially the Olympic Games is not a desirable action.

The Yanks were the first culprit in boycotting the Moscow Olympics because of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (whilst hypocritically pretending to forget its own murderous interference in Vietnam where millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered by Yankee weapons and the country severely and horrendously damaged in infrastructure, agriculture, economy, and worse, socially etc).

Zan wrote: Do not also forget about South Africa under apartheid. It took a huge concerted effort by the entire international community on every aspect from trade and finance to sports and culture in order to put successful pressure on the South African government. Malaysia played a major role in the movement.

In reality it was both the end of the Cold War (which neutralised South Africa's usefulness in the USA's fight against communism) and her failing economy which broke the White Supremacist back, and not mere international social, cultural and sports pressure.

However, I do not agree when Malaysians call for boycotts of establishments like McDonald’s and Starbucks within the country. These boycotts will not affect anything because are franchises that are essentially owned by Malaysians who have employees who are Malaysians. Boycotts of these establishments only hurt our own people.

Unfortunately, the efforts to protest the Israeli government isn’t as popular as the protests that have happened against Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa because Israel has the support of some of the strongest and most influential governments in the world.

For efforts like this to be a success, it needs to be huge and needs to have the support of the entire international community. And even though this isn’t happening at the moment, I am still glad that we have a government that is standing firm and will not back down under the pressure of more ‘influential’ governments.

And the reason why Israel has the support of some of the strongest and most influential governments in the world is due to two factors, namely religion in the USA and guilt of the WWII Holocaust in Europe.

The American Christian Right or the Christian Zionists sees Israel as an intrinsic, nay, vital part of their Christian salvation, for they believe that the Christian Messiah will ONLY make his Second Coming in the Promise Land where the Jews gather, namely Israel. Thus those yanks will defend Israel even at the expense of the USA's interests. Aid to Israel has never been cut or reduced whilst financial budgets for various US departments have been.

I bet the belief of the Christian Zionists in Israel as vital to the Return of Jesus even surpasses and eclipses the conservative Malaysian Muslim faith in their religion, such is the fanaticism of those Christian Zionists.

The Europeans, especially the Germanic nations, of course, have never gotten over their guilt about the Holocaust in WWII.

Surprisingly or perhaps not, but certainly annoying, that guilt seems to apply to ONLY matters Jewish, like Israel, Israelis and Jews, whilst the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust (gypsies, Russian, Poles, Slavs, etc) whose deaths actually outnumber the Jewish victims are conveniently ignored. Such is the power and effectiveness of Jewish propaganda and constant reiteration in reminding Europeans of their culpability in the Holocaust.

Even the term 'anti-Semitism' has been unjustly misappropriated by the Jews for themselves, when that term should apply equally to hostility to, prejudice, or discrimination against Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, some Ethiopians, and Aramaean tribes including Hebrews.

Thus it can be argued that today the most anti-Semitic people are actually the Israelis in their hostility, prejudice, racism and discrimination against Arabs in general and Palestinians specifically.